Distorting the Meaning of Shariah

The tsunami of Islamophobia continues to roll in. The article by Frosty Woolridge, ”America Must Never Succumb to Islam’s Shariah Law,” in today’s NewswithViews.com is perhaps the clearest distortion yet of Islamic law. He supports Congressman Tancredo’s “Jihad Prevention Act … which would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Shari’a’ law and expel Islamists already here.” >>>>>

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 7:08 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Post navigation

3 Responses to Distorting the Meaning of Shariah

Advocates of the more vile aspects of Shari’a are alive and well in America – and their numbers include plenty of US citizens. Female genital mutilation is an ongoing problem in US cities with high African descent Muslim populations and many involved in this heinous act are American’s by birth or naturalization.

Yeah, it’s a problem. I have to say though that Tancredo paints his picture with far too wide of a brush.

Shari’a advocates should be denied access to the US and those already here under Visas should be deported, but only in both cases only when they can be shown to be active proponents of furthering the insinuation of Shari’a into the US.

Your comments are not based in fact. While it is true that many Africans have practiced female mutilation, it is not an Islamic practice. It is a regional African cultural belief that span over ignorant peoples of different religious groups, including Christians and animists. It is pure propaganda to associate it with a religious practice.

If sharia advocates should be denied access to the US, then concept goes against freedom of thought and freedom of religion. It also singles out one potential and supposed contradiction to American thought. Disagreement with much of what the U.S. practices, many times contrary to the Constitution shows that we were never as open a society as we have claimed to be.

Topping the Bill of Rights…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This sounds like Tancredo’s argument is unconstitutional, and if we followed your line of thinking on this, we should probably deport all Americans who go against the Constitution? :)…. I wouldn’t want that.

I hate to tell you this but the matter is actually in dispute. Islamic jurisprudents, have since the rise of Islam are in consensus that female circumcision is permitted by Islam. But they were divided with regard to its status in shari’a because the haddiths concerning with female circumcision are not universally accepted across all sects and masjid.

Some imam have said that female circumcision is required by Shari’a, just like male circumcision. Some said this is the mainstream practice, while others said it is a noble act. But throughout the history of Islam, nobody has ever said that performing female circumcision is a crime. There have been religious rulings on this for 13 centuries.

Shari’a is not religion; it’s law. It does not violate freedom of religion to deny laws directly based on a religion from being enacted within the US.

This was the gist of my point. The US should deny access to anyone who wants to create Shari’a courts and / or enact Shari’a law – kind of redundant there, but English is a pallid language – within the US.

We shouldn’t care what you believe, but we should and do care whether or not you want to change our laws or enact your own within our country. I feel the same way about Rabbinical Courts and Ecclesiastic Courts as well.

Get connected

Archives

Pages

FAIR USE NOTICE

This web site may contain copyrighted material, which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such images and excerpts are made available for the purpose of analysis and critique, as well as to advance understanding of social, political, media and cultural issues. It is my understanding that the above constitutes 'fair use' as explained in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law.